Michael Kifer wrote:
>>
>>Just for clarification: what would be the argument against allowing
>>metadata on all objects, that is, allowing a <meta> role element as a
>>child of any class (capitalized tag) element (this question is othogonal
>>to that of identifying rules vs groups)?
>
> See my answer to Sandro a few mins ago.
But your arguments is that metadata everywhere would bloat the PS beyond
all recognition: what if we do not specify a PS for metadata, except in
some specific cases (e.g. groups)?
> Metadata *may* affect the semantics, although I do not know yet how to
> express it in FLD. There is a whole class of useful dialects based on
> prioritized logics (one is courteous LP) where rule labels and other
> non-rule info are used in defining the semantics.
So, FLD would have to specify a PS for metadata on everything. But FLD
being a framework, that does not mean that any specific dialect based on
FLD would have a PS for metadata but for a few specific constructs. So,
no concrete syntax being absurdely bloated, right?
And, anyway, in a dialect where some information, say: priorities, has
an impact on the semantics, that iformation is part of the rule, and,
thus, not meta-data. So that even FLD would not have to specify a PS for
metadata on everything.
(Note to self: seems too easy; I probably missed something)
> Do you mean to standardize some of the attributes of the meta?
Yes, this is what I meant.
> It would be
> useful, although I am afraid we will not be done any time soon with this
> given the amount of heat that even seemingly simple issues tend to
> generate.
Maybe, or maybe not :-)
Maybe we could just have a quick poll on which meta-data everyone would
like to have standardized, and maybe we would see that there is a
obvious subset of the answers on which nobody objects?
Christian (always the optimist :-)